Lawrence v. State, 31089
| Decision Date | 04 April 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 31089,31089 |
| Citation | 250 Ind. 161,235 N.E.2d 198 |
| Parties | Paul LaVerne LAWRENCE, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Alex M. Clark, Richard C. Johnson, Indianapolis, for appellant.
John J. Dillon, Atty. Gen., Douglas B. McFadden, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant was charged by affidavit in two (2) counts with the offense of Theft under the provisions of Burns' Indiana Statutes, Anno., (1966 Suppl.), §§ 10--3030(1)(a) and 10--3030(2)(a), and the offense of Conspiring to Commit a Felony under Burns' Indiana Statutes, Anno., (1956 Repl.), § 10--1101.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty of the crime charged in Count I of the affidavit which, omitting the formal parts thereof, reads as follows:
'That on or about the 17th day of August, 1965, at and in the County of St. Joseph, State of Indiana, one PAUL LaVERN (sic) LAWRENCE did then and there unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously obtain by deception, control over property, to-wit: one (1) heavy duty battery, of the value of Thirty-five and 00/100 ($35.00) Dollars, of the owner, to-wit; Humble Oil and Refining Company, located at 1031 East Washington Street, Indianpolis, Indiana, intending to deprive the owner permanently of the use and benefit of said property, contrary to the form of Statute in such cases made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the State of Indiana.'
The verdict returned by the jury, omitting the caption and signatures, reads as follows:
'We, the jury, find the defendant guilty of the crime charged in Count I of the affidavit, Theft, by obtaining and exerting unauthorized control over property, and fix the defendant's penalty at a fine of $50.00 and imprisonment for a period of one year.'
The Court, thereafter, entered judgment on the verdict, and the judgment of the Court appears in the following language:
'IT IS, THEREFORE, CONSIDERED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED DECREED by the Court pursuant to the verdict of the jury that the defendant, Paul LaVern (sic) Lawrence, be and hereby is declared guilty of the crime charged in Count I of the affidavit, Theft, by obtaining and exerting unauthorized control over property, and that he be and hereby is fined in the sum of $50.00 and that he be and hereby is imprisoned for a period of one year.'
It is to be noted that Count I of the affidavit charges the appellant of 'unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously obtain(ing) by deception, control over property'; whereas, the verdict of the jury and the judgment on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gaddie v. State
...variance will also be found where an affidavit charges theft under (1)(b) and a verdict is rendered under (1)(a). Lawrence v. State (1968) 250 Ind. 161, 235 N.E.2d 198.Apparently, however, a charge may be brought under (1)(a) and a conviction may be obtained for a specific offense defined w......
-
Elmore v. State
...(1972), 258 Ind. 481, 484, 282 N.E.2d 548, in relation to Coates v. State (1967), 249 Ind. 357, 229 N.E.2d 640, and Lawrence v. State (1968), 250 Ind. 161, 235 N.E.2d 198, Elmore's testimony is also prima facie proof, as to him, of the general charge of obtaining and exerting unauthorized c......
-
Addis v. State
...set forth within the same statute, forgery and uttering a forged instrument are separate and distinct crimes.); Lawrence v. State, (1968) 250 Ind. 161, 235 N.E.2d 198; Coates v. State, (1967) 249 Ind. 357, 229 N.E.2d 640 (Subsections of theft code relating to theft by the defendant and thef......
-
Simmons v. State
...then our decision today would have been different. See, Coates v. State (1967), 249 Ind. 357, 229 N.E.2d 640; Lawrence v. State (1968), 250 Ind. 161, 235 N.E.2d 198; Green v. State (1972), 258 Ind. 481, 282 N.E.2d 548; Elmore v. State (1978) 269 Ind. 532, 382 N.E.2d 893; Nash v. State (1982......